The appointed accountant's report under Section 24A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is final and binding, and courts cannot reverse previous orders unless significant procedural errors are shown.

Table of Content
1. application for challenging accountant report (Para 1 , 2)
2. plaintiff's grounds for application (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

This is an appeal by the appellant /plaintiff against my decision in (a) refusing to grant leave to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to challenge the contents of the report prepared by a court appointed accountant and for assessment of damages; and (b) in fixing the sum of RM7,880,426.00 as the amount owed by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of the defendant's counter-claim. Before I set out the facts, let me start off with the application first.

The application

By way of Summons in Chambers (in enclosure 31), the plaintiff make an application under Section 24A , Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and/ or Order 92, Rules of the High court 1980 for the following orders:

(1) UHY Advisory (KL) Sdn Bhd (UHY) dikehendaki menyerahkan sesalinan laporan yang telah disediakan dan difailkan oleh UHY berkenaan dengan fi pemasaran defendan (Laporan UHY) di mahkamah yang mulia ini kepada pihak plaintif dan defendan dalam tempoh masa tiga (3) hari dari tarikh perintah ini;

(2) Pihak-pihak plaintif dan defendan diberi kebebasan mengemukakan keterangan bagi tujuan mencabar dan/atau menjelaskan isi kandungan laporan UHY;

(3) UHY dikehendaki mengadakan satu taksiran mengikut kehendak Aturan 37, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan menyediakan satu laporan lanjut selepas taksiran tersebut;

(4) Secara alternatif kepada pohonan-pohonan (1), (2), (3) dan (4), mahkamah memerintahkan bahawa:

(i) Laporan UHY diketepikan; dan

(ii) UHY dikehendaki menyediakan satu laporan baru selepas mengadakan satu taksiran mengikut kehendak Aturan 37, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980;

(5) Kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh plaintif dan defendan; dan

(6) Relif selanjutnya atau relif lain sebagaimana mahkamah yang mulia ini anggap berpatutan.

The grounds of the application are as follows:

(a) Pihak plaintif tidak pernah diberikan sesalinan laporan UHY walaupun penemuan dalam laporan UHY mempunyai kesan langsung kepada hak dan kepentingan plaintif;

(b) Pihak plaintif tiada pengetahuan tentang cara serta dasar bagaimanakah pihak UHY telah mencapai penemuan plaintif berkenaan fi pemasaran di bawah Laporan UHY;

(c) Berdasarkan kepada rekod dan pengiraan plaintif, jumlah yang dimaklumkan semasa sebutan pada 4.10.2011 adalah jauh berlebihan;

(d) Pihak UHY, selaku akauntan yang dilantik oleh mahkamah untuk menjalankan satu taksiran mengikut seksyen 24A, Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, juga tidak pernah mengadakan apa-apa jua siasatan atau pun taksiran yang melibatkan pendengaran kesemua pihak. Ketinggalan prosedur tersebut mengakibatkan Laporan UHY tidak boleh diterima dan boleh diketepikan oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini; dan

(e) Memandangkan bahawa Laporan UHY mempunyai kesan langsung terhadap plaintif, plaintif haruslah diberi peluang untuk meneliti isi kandungan laporan dan mengemukakan keterangan sewajarnya untuk mencabar dan/atau menjelaskan apa-apa ketakpastian dan kesalahan dalam penemuan UHY.

Background facts

The facts giving rise to this application are set out in the affidavit in support of the application affirmed by the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff, Mr Chan Feoi Chun on 14.10.2011 (enclosure 30).They are as follows. The plaintiff is a licensed timeshare operator. They sell timeshare membership known as Swiss Garden International Vacation Club (SGIVC). Pursuant to a Marketing Agreement dated 2.7.2001 entered into between the parties, the defendant was appointed as the plaintiffs sole and exclusive marketing agent to promote and sell SGIVC. The appointment is for five (5) years. Either party can terminate the agreement by giving 2 months prior notice. Under the agreement, the defendant is entitled to be paid 40% marketing fee for membership fees paid by the purchaser or 60% if membership fees are paid by installments.

Due to a drop in sales, the plaintiff failed to pay to the defendant their marketing fees for the month of May 2005 to Augu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document